>> While most OCaml implementations have poor standard libraries
> That right there should tell you something.
I wouldn't use that as the main criteria to judge a language. C has a poor standard library (for a definition of "poor" relative to, say, python) and so does C++. But they are certainly useful tools in their domains.
In any case, OCaml has a couple of standard library replacements/augmentations that reduce the gap a bit. (Batteries Included [1] and Jane Street's Core [2])
> That right there should tell you something.
I wouldn't use that as the main criteria to judge a language. C has a poor standard library (for a definition of "poor" relative to, say, python) and so does C++. But they are certainly useful tools in their domains.
In any case, OCaml has a couple of standard library replacements/augmentations that reduce the gap a bit. (Batteries Included [1] and Jane Street's Core [2])
[1] https://github.com/ocaml-batteries-team/batteries-included/
[2] https://github.com/janestreet/core and https://github.com/janestreet/core_kernel